|
I was looking through the special combat maneuvers and weapon tables, and came up with a question that I couldn't find an answer to, from the rulebook or the messageboard.
Is it possible to use other weapons to e.g. trip your opponents than the ones with the "trip"-special quality on the weapons table?
Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.
The part of the book that describes the Trip action doesn't say anything about weapon qualities, just states that you can trip anyone with a melee attack. So, can you use a longsword for tripping, or does it have to be a flail?
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.
How about weapons with the reach special quality? Rules state that you can attack a foe 10ft away, but not adjacent to you. Most polearms have this quality, but e.g. halberd doesn't. Can you use a weapon like glaive to strike an opponent that's standing next to you, and if not, why can you do it with a halberd?
I was looking through the special combat maneuvers and weapon tables, and came up with a question that I couldn't find an answer to, from the rulebook or the messageboard.
Is it possible to use other weapons to e.g. trip your opponents than the ones with the "trip"-special quality on the weapons table?
Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.The part of the book that describes the Trip action doesn't say anything about weapon qualities, just states that you can trip anyone with a melee attack. So, can you use a longsword for tripping, or does it have to be a flail?
Reach: You use a reach weapon to strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't use it against an adjacent foe.How about weapons with the reach special quality? Rules state that you can attack a foe 10ft away, but not adjacent to you. Most polearms have this quality, but e.g. halberd doesn't. Can you use a weapon like glaive to strike an opponent that's standing next to you, and if not, why can you do it with a halberd?
You can't trip without a trip weapon unless you're doing it unarmed. You can't use a reach weapon to strike adjacent.
If you look at martial weapons that are 2 handed, the max damage is 12. Weapons with abilities max damage is 10. This is for game balance. If you could trip with a greatsword why would any one use a heavy flail.
|
Actually you CAN trip with a Greatsword, but without the Trip special quality you can not drop the Greatsword if you are tripped in your own trip attempt. (Try saying that ten times real fast).
You can perform any combat manoeuvre with any weapon, you just get a small boon for doing so with a weapon of the appropriate special ability.
Actually you CAN trip with a Greatsword, but without the Trip special quality you can not drop the Greatsword if you are tripped in your own trip attempt. (Try saying that ten times real fast).
actually you can drop the greatsword(it's a free action), but is of no use to you, because as grasshopper said you are not actually tripping with it since it is not a trip weapon.
You can perform any combat manoeuvre with any weapon, you just get a small boon for doing so with a weapon of the appropriate special ability.
I'd say you can perform any combat maneuver regardless of the weapon you're wielding because generally you are not using your weapon to make the maneuver unless the weapon has the special ability.
How about weapons with the reach special quality? Rules state that you can attack a foe 10ft away, but not adjacent to you. Most polearms have this quality, but e.g. halberd doesn't. Can you use a weapon like glaive to strike an opponent that's standing next to you, and if not, why can you do it with a halberd?
From the weapon descriptions:
Glaive: A glaive is a simple blade, mounted to the end of a pole about 7 feet in length.
Greatsword: This immense two-handed sword is about 5 feet in length.
Guisarme: A guisarme is an 8-foot-long shaft with a blade and a hook mounted at the tip.
Halberd: A halberd is similar to a 5-foot-long spear, but it also has a small, axe-like head mounted near the tip.
It's mechanically impossible to reach further than 5 feet with a Halberd or a Greatsword but you can do it with a Guisarme or a Glaive.
The opposite applies also, if the head of your weapon is 5 feet away from you, you can't use it effectively against someone adjacent to you.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Is it possible to use other weapons to e.g. trip your opponents than the ones with the "trip"-special quality on the weapons table?
Most polearms have this quality, but e.g. halberd doesn't. Can you use a weapon like glaive to strike an opponent that's standing next to you, and if not, why can you do it with a halberd?
No
No idea what you mean by the second question. A reach weapon doesn't have inclusive reach (unless it says so) and a non-reach weapon doesn't have reach.
|
|
Looks like I'm not the only one confused with the rules here, the opinions are divided in two regarding the tripping and special quality weapons.
Nidho, the weapon descriptions make a lot of sense. I understand it's a game balance issue, the reach weapons not being usable in the adjacent squares. I was just wondering, if it was possible to use the shaft of the polearm to beat the ones who get too close. Guess they're just too unwieldy in close combat.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from tripping with whatever weapon you want to trip with. Here is the entirety of the Trip section of the rulebook:
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.If your attack exceeds the target’s CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
Nothing in there about only using a weapon with the 'trip' property. In fact, if we take the line in the trip property "you can use this weapon to make trip attacks" to mean "ONLY a weapon with this property can be used to make trip attacks" then you can't stick out your leg to trip someone running past you, because Unarmed Attack doesn't have the trip property, nor do any natural weapons.
The whole Trip rule is silly.
First, anyone, even an untrained farmer, can trip with a foot (it provokes an AoO, but anyone can do it), but not even the greatest weapon master in the world can trip a crippled blind orc with a quarterstaff?
Second, if you do manage to find a way to trip with a staff, but fail badly, you must fall down because it is apparently harder to drop a staff than it is to drop a flail.
Silliness.
How it should work is some weapons can only realistically trip a moving foe. Greatswords and quarterstaffs are good examples. If you're moving through my threatened square, I should be able to put anything in your path and have a chance to trip you because you are moving. Heck, if you're not careful, you might trip over a small rock, a tree root, or even your own bootlaces, so a big old stick or sword smacking you in the shin or foot should have a chance to take you down. At least a chance.
But if we're standing toe to toe, it should be very hard for me to trip you with a greatsword. I'm either going to chop off your foot, or I will miss you, or maybe I'll almost miss you (doing a bit of damage that hurts you without killing you), but none of those cases really trip you. My staff will bruise your shin, but won't damage you any more than if I whack you in the arm, and less than if I whack you in the head, and should have no real chance to trip you.
Other weapons are just too dang small for tripping. Nobody will ever trip anyone with a dagger, for example.
The rest of the weapons are just a small group of weapons built for tripping. They either wrap around someone's leg (like a flail or a whip) or they have a hook on them that you can get behind someone's leg and yank their leg out from under them to make them fall down (halberds, guisarmes, scythes, etc.). These weapons should be good at tripping, and your chance of success should be much higher than your chances with basic weapons like swords or staffs or spears.
And no matter what, if you use any weapon that is not glued to your hand or clamped into a locking gauntlet, or doesn't have a strap to go around your wrist, then when your trip goes very bad, you should have a choice to drop it or be tripped yourself. Your choice. Hang on and take the consequences of being prone, or let go and draw a backup weapon. This should apply to all weapons you use for a Trip attempt, regardless of whether you have a good chance or a bad chance, regardless of whether the weapon is designed for tripping or not.
That's how it should work, IMO.
(yes, I know I didn't give any mechanical rules, just ht eoverview of what it should be).
Second, if you do manage to find a way to trip with a staff, but fail badly, you must fall down because it is apparently harder to drop a staff than it is to drop a flail.
This rule is gone in Pathfinder. The only way the 'trip' property works now is if the opponent you're trying to trip uses its AoO for your trip attempt to attempt to trip you (try saying that five times fast...). There's no automatic retributive trip any more.
Second, if you do manage to find a way to trip with a staff, but fail badly, you must fall down because it is apparently harder to drop a staff than it is to drop a flail.This rule is gone in Pathfinder. The only way the 'trip' property works now is if the opponent you're trying to trip uses its AoO for your trip attempt to attempt to trip you (try saying that five times fast...). There's no automatic retributive trip any more.
I was referring to this:
If your attack exceeds the target’s CMD, the target is
knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are
knocked prone instead.
Blah, I read past that like four times even after you pointed it out. I stand corrected.
not even the greatest weapon master in the world can trip a crippled blind orc with a quarterstaff?
Absolutely not. The greatest weapon master in the world would never deign to use anything less than a full buck and a quarterstaff.
Looks like I'm not the only one confused with the rules here, the opinions are divided in two regarding the tripping and special quality weapons.
Nidho, the weapon descriptions make a lot of sense. I understand it's a game balance issue, the reach weapons not being usable in the adjacent squares. I was just wondering, if it was possible to use the shaft of the polearm to beat the ones who get too close. Guess they're just too unwieldy in close combat.
Yes they are.
But if i recall correctly there's a feat that allows you to do that. Short-Hafted or something like that. Maybe in one of the complete books.There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from tripping with whatever weapon you want to trip with. Here is the entirety of the Trip section of the rulebook:
Nothing in there about only using a weapon with the 'trip' property. In fact, if we take the line in the trip property "you can use this weapon to make trip attacks" to mean "ONLY a weapon with this property can be used to make trip attacks" then you can't stick out your leg to trip someone running past you, because Unarmed Attack doesn't have the trip property, nor do any natural weapons.
You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is no more than one size category larger than you. If you do not have the Improved Trip feat, or a similar ability, initiating a trip provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.If your attack exceeds the target’s CMD, the target is knocked prone. If your attack fails by 10 or more, you are knocked prone instead. If the target has more than two legs, add +2 to the DC of the combat maneuver attack roll for each additional leg it has. Some creatures—such as oozes, creatures without legs, and flying creatures—cannot be tripped.
You do not trip with the weapon just like you do not grapple with it. Tripping is a combat maneuver, you just do it.
Trip weapons specifically allow you to use them to attempt the tripping in a way that keeps your opponent of turning your maneuver against you.
You do not trip with the weapon just like you do not grapple with it.
Grappling specifically requires the ability to grasp, thus meaning you have to use a grasping appendage (ie, not a weapon, barring natural weapons) to do it.
Tripping has no such restriction. You can trip someone with a stick, a rope, or pretty much anything else long enough to reach from your hand to their leg or foot.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, NONE of the maneuvers specifically state that you're allowed to use them with weapons. Even disarm only implies it by providing rules for doing it unarmed. Using your interpretation, you wouldn't be able to use a weapon to sunder.
Grappling specifically requires the ability to grasp, thus meaning you have to use a grasping appendage (ie, not a weapon, barring natural weapons) to do it.Tripping has no such restriction. You can trip someone with a stick, a rope, or pretty much anything else long enough to reach from your hand to their leg or foot.
Not by the actual mechanics, if you were actually using any of these objects to trip then you could drop them to avoid the counter-trip. That's not the case. Trip weapons are the exception.
As I see it triping involves putting someone out of balance. Usually using your own weight/positioning against the opponent. Hence the penalties for size and extra legs. Nothing to do with a weapon.
EDIT: As a matter of fact, NONE of the maneuvers specifically state that you're allowed to use them with weapons. Even disarm only implies it by providing rules for doing it unarmed. Using your interpretation, you wouldn't be able to use a weapon to sunder.
Both disarm and sunder call for an actual attack to be made. It's the attack part that implies the use of a weapon or an unarmed or natural attack. The other maneuvers are not weapon use related. That's why none of the descriptions mentions a weapon.
Both disarm and sunder call for an actual attack to be made.
No. Trip uses the exact same verbiage that disarm does: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack ... if your attack exceeds the target's CMD ... if your attack fails ..." vs "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack ... if your attack is successful ... if your attack fails ...".
And to be clear, Disarm and Trip both use a CMB vs CMD check, not an attack roll, so the difference between "if your attack exceeds the target's CMD" and "if your attack succeeds" is nonexistent, mechanically.
Both disarm and sunder call for an actual attack to be made.No. Trip uses the exact same verbiage that disarm does: "You can attempt to trip your opponent in place of a melee attack ... if your attack exceeds the target's CMD ... if your attack fails ..." vs "You can attempt to disarm your opponent in place of a melee attack ... if your attack is successful ... if your attack fails ...".
And to be clear, Disarm and Trip both use a CMB vs CMD check, not an attack roll, so the difference between "if your attack exceeds the target's CMD" and "if your attack succeeds" is nonexistent, mechanically.
Performing a Combat Maneuver: When performing a combat maneuver, you must use an action appropriate to the maneuver you are attempting to perform. While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action. Unless otherwise noted, performing a combat maneuver provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of the maneuver. If you are hit by the target, you take the damage normally and apply that amount as a penalty to the attack roll to perform the maneuver. If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll). If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
You can't trip without a trip weapon unless you're doing it unarmed. You can't use a reach weapon to strike adjacent.If you look at martial weapons that are 2 handed, the max damage is 12. Weapons with abilities max damage is 10. This is for game balance. If you could trip with a greatsword why would any one use a heavy flail.
+1
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I was just wondering, if it was possible to use the shaft of the polearm to beat the ones who get too close.
Yes, but it is an improvised weapon (-4 to hit and damage based on size like CWar) or with Short Haft feat.
There is nothing in the rules that prevents you from tripping with whatever weapon you want to trip with.
Other than 3.p p145 "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks"
A weapon without Trip ability can't make trip attacks by RAW. Unarmed can always make trip attacks since the trip ability is written with unarmed attack in mind (which is why you get an AoO if not made with Improved Trip.
Other than 3.p p145 "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks"
You're trying to use a positive ("you can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks") to prove a negative ("weapons cannot be used to make trip attacks unless they have the trip property"). It doesn't work that way. Especially since, as I've already pointed out, the text for Trip and Disarm are functionally identical, and no one's claiming you can't make a disarm attempt with any weapon. Also, Unarmed Strikes don't have the trip property, which means you can't trip with them by your definition.
@nidho: Way to ignore the forest for the trees. Care to address the actual point of that post instead of quibbling?
Also, Unarmed Strikes don't have the trip property, which means you can't trip with them by your definition.
Who is claiming that you trip with an Unarmed Strike? The rules refer to (a) tripping with a "trip" weapon, and (b) making a "normal" trip attempt (without a "trip" weapon, by implication). Unarmed strikes have nothing to do with it, in any case.
Also, Unarmed Strikes don't have the trip property, which means you can't trip with them by your definition.Who is claiming that you trip with an Unarmed Strike? The rules refer to (a) tripping with a "trip" weapon, and (b) making a "normal" trip attempt (without a "trip" weapon, by implication). Unarmed strikes have nothing to do with it, in any case.
As nidho pointed out above, Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls. That means you have to be attacking with something. You can't just reach out with the force of your mind and trip someone, unless you're using psionics or the telekinesis spell. So, if you're not tripping with your weapon, you're tripping with an unarmed attack. Which doesn't have the trip property and thus cannot be used to trip. Which means you can only make a trip attempt if you're wielding a sickle, a flail, a heavy flail, a guisarme, a halberd, a scythe (what?), a kama, a whip, a spiked chain, a dire flail, a gnome hooked hammer, or a bola.
As nidho pointed out above, Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls. That means you have to be attacking with something. You can't just reach out with the force of your mind and trip someone, unless you're using psionics or the telekinesis spell. So, if you're not tripping with your weapon, you're tripping with an unarmed attack.
Bwah? Casting the spell Shocking Grasp requires an attack roll too, but that doesn't mean you're "casting a spell with an unarmed strike".
Obviously logic dictates that you're using some part of your body, or a stick, or whatever, to do your tripping. But "unarmed strikes" have nothing to do with it.
I'm with Zurai on this, in the respect that you do not need a trip weapon to perform a trip attack. It doesn't say that.
If you do use a trip weapon, you have the option of dropping the weapon rather than have the trip reversed on you. That is the advantage of using such a weapon.
Done. Fini.
(But like Hogarth, I'm stepping away from the unarmed attack discussion as irrelevant)
Other than 3.p p145 "Trip: You can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks"
James, quote the whole passage. The relevance is that if you said trip weapon, you can drop it rather than being tripped yourself.
You're trying to use a positive ("you can use a trip weapon to make trip attacks") to prove a negative ("weapons cannot be used to make trip attacks unless they have the trip property"). It doesn't work that way. Especially since, as I've already pointed out, the text for Trip and Disarm are functionally identical, and no one's claiming you can't make a disarm attempt with any weapon.
Avoiding the unarmed attack argument, Zurai's logic is spot on here.
I'm with Zurai on this, in the respect that you do not need a trip weapon to perform a trip attack. It doesn't say that.
If you do use a trip weapon, you have the option of dropping the weapon rather than have the trip reversed on you. That is the advantage of using such a weapon.
That's the interpretation that I'm leaning towards as well, although it opens up some kind of dumb results where tripping an opponent with a masterwork sap (which is not particularly designed for tripping) is easier than tripping an opponent with a whip.
As nidho pointed out above, Combat Maneuvers are attack rolls. That means you have to be attacking with something. You can't just reach out with the force of your mind and trip someone, unless you're using psionics or the telekinesis spell. So, if you're not tripping with your weapon, you're tripping with an unarmed attack.Bwah? Casting the spell Shocking Grasp requires an attack roll too, but that doesn't mean you're "casting a spell with an unarmed strike".
C'mon. Shocking grasp is the weapon. It's even defined as a "weaponlike spell", which is why you can take Weapon Focus: Touch Spell.
Hmm. I think this all falls into a 3.5 to PF changes debate. Key text is missing from PF that was in 3.5. For instance:
Tripping with a Weapon: Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the weapon to avoid being tripped.
This is completely absent from PF. It's harder to make an argument that you can't trip someone with a quarterstaff using the PF rules, but was it the intent of the PF developers to allow tripping with quarterstaffs? I don't know |:
But, by using the PF rules, there's a bunch of new functionality you can do with reach weapons. For instance, you can grapple someone with a reach weapon. Why not?
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
But that means there are more questions: can you bull rush someone with a reach weapon?
@nidho: Way to ignore the forest for the trees. Care to address the actual point of that post instead of quibbling?
Mind the tone, please.
People are missing the main benefit of using a weapon to make a non-standard attack (i.e., to attempt a combat maneuver): The benefit of making your trip attempt using a weapon, as opposed to generically (or "without a weapon" as some of you are putting it) is primarily that it entitles you to add to your modifiers all those that would pertain to a standard attack made with the same weapon by virtue of having used that weapon: any magic enhancement modifiers, for one; any applicable Weapon Focus feat, for another. The fact that you can also drop the weapon in lieu of being tripped yourself, should you fail badly enough, is, relatively speaking, of secondary importance here.
I'm going to respond to this because I made the point about dropping the weapon.
It is of secondary importance, but what you might be misunderstanding is that some people in this thread are taking a position that one can not even make a trip attack without a "trip weapon".
If you disagree with that position (as I do), than you take the advantages that you've (rightfully) outlined for granted. Instead I emphasized the ability to drop the "trip weapon", because that is what differentiates it from any other weapon without the trip property. At least in context of making trip attacks.
(And yeah, Hogarth, making trip attacks with saps is stupid. So is swimming in full plate, but a high enough level fighter can do that too. Sometimes you just got to close your eyes and pretend for the sake of fun. A paraphrase from our Dr. Jacobs.)
Back to Billy, it's not that what you've said was ever overlooked by me but the comments were made to define what actual benefits a "trip weapon" conveys, not whether it is more advantageous to trip with a weapon as opposed to not.
People are missing the main benefit of using a weapon to make a non-standard attack (i.e., to attempt a combat maneuver): The benefit of making your trip attempt using a weapon, as opposed to generically (or "without a weapon" as some of you are putting it) is primarily that it entitles you to add to your modifiers all those that would pertain to a standard attack made with the same weapon by virtue of having used that weapon: any magic enhancement modifiers, for one; any applicable Weapon Focus feat, for another. The fact that you can also drop the weapon in lieu of being tripped yourself, should you fail badly enough, is, relatively speaking, of secondary importance here.I'm going to respond to this because I made the point about dropping the weapon.
It is of secondary importance, but what you might be misunderstanding is that some people in this thread are taking a position that one can not even make a trip attack without a "trip weapon".
If you disagree with that position (as I do), than you take the advantages that you've (rightfully) outlined for granted. Instead I emphasized the ability to drop the "trip weapon", because that is what differentiates it from any other weapon without the trip property. At least in context of making trip attacks.
However, this just gets back to the silliness I pointed out earlier in this thread:
Why is it so much harder to drop a sword or a staff than it is to drop a flail or a halberd?
If we accept, as you do, and as I do, that a combatant should be able to make trip attacks with nearly any weapon (as I said earlier, a few weapons are just too small to trip, like daggers), then why must we accept that my fingers are incapable of releasing the hilt of my sword but those same fingers could easily releast the haft of a flail?
Silliness.
Yes, I know it says it right there in the RAW. I'm not disputing what's in the RAW. I'm only drawing attention to the silliness of this rule.
3.x should never have included such silliness, and I truly wish Pathfinder would have dropped/fixed it like they did with so many other silly rules.
Nolo Contendere, Blake.
It is silly in some respects, other than it's a special move that the designers wanted there to be a definite negative consequence should you fail.
It's not a perfect simulation.
Nolo Contendere, Blake.
It is silly in some respects, other than it's a special move that the designers wanted there to be a definite negative consequence should you fail.
It's not a perfect simulation.
I never expected a perfect simulation. Not from any D&D-derived game.
I just think it's silly that the original guy who thought up the concept of a differentiation for trip vs. non-trip weapons couldn't come up with something less silly than the facility with which the wielder is able to open his fingers and relax his grip.
Much more sensible would be to say that snagging someone's leg with a flexible weapon, or with a weapon equipped with a barb or hook at the business end, is much easier than trying to trip with your own foot or with a weapon not built for tripping. The mechanical difference would then be a lessening of the DC of performing the trip when using weapons designed for tripping.
Tripping using your own appendages should run a risk of falling prone yourself when you blow the trip.
But when using any weapon, you should be able to relax your grip on all of them with equal ease. You should also be able to choose not to let go, in which case you are deciding that becoming prone is preferable to becoming disarmed.
Much less nonsensical, in my mind.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Especially since, as I've already pointed out, the text for Trip and Disarm are functionally identical, and no one's claiming you can't make a disarm attempt with any weapon. Also, Unarmed Strikes don't have the trip property, which means you can't trip with them by your definition.
Well, all I can say is I don't agree with your view of what RAW says and I believe firmly believe that by RAW you can't trip without Unarmed Strikes or a Trip weapon.
You can continue to debate it, but debate doesn't prove your side. No one has shown any line in the rules that in my view proves your position.
So we are left with two views of RAW. Essentially, it becomes an "Ask your DM" issue.
...Well, all I can say is I don't agree with your view of what RAW says and I believe firmly believe that by RAW you can't trip without Unarmed Strikes or a Trip weapon.
You can continue to debate it, but debate doesn't prove your side. No one has shown any line in the rules that in my view proves your position.
So we are left with two views of RAW. Essentially, it becomes an "Ask your DM" issue.
+1
It is of secondary importance, but what you might be misunderstanding is that some people in this thread are taking a position that one can not even make a trip attack without a "trip weapon".
If you're referring to me when I posted:
"You do not trip with the weapon just like you do not grapple with it. Tripping is a combat maneuver, you just do it."
I admit this was badly phrased and might lead to the conclusion Watcher mentions. Which is not what I meant.
Nolo Contendere, Blake.
It is silly in some respects, other than it's a special move that the designers wanted there to be a definite negative consequence should you fail.
It's not a perfect simulation.
I never expected a perfect simulation. Not from any D&D-derived game.
I just think it's silly that the original guy who thought up the concept of a differentiation for trip vs. non-trip weapons couldn't come up with something less silly than the facility with which the wielder is able to open his fingers and relax his grip.
Much more sensible would be to say that snagging someone's leg with a flexible weapon, or with a weapon equipped with a barb or hook at the business end, is much easier than trying to trip with your own foot or with a weapon not built for tripping. The mechanical difference would then be a lessening of the DC of performing the trip when using weapons designed for tripping.
Tripping using your own appendages should run a risk of falling prone yourself when you blow the trip.
But when using any weapon, you should be able to relax your grip on all of them with equal ease. You should also be able to choose not to let go, in which case you are deciding that becoming prone is preferable to becoming disarmed.
Much less nonsensical, in my mind.
Combat maneuvers are after all special modified attacks.
As such they default to one of the modes listed in the attack section of the rules:Unarmed, Armed and Natural (ranged does not apply here).
Not all weapons are suited to grab, trip or, as meabolex hinted, bullrush.
So by my book you cannot use them, nor their enhancements, in such maneuvers unless it's specified in their description.
Disarm and sunder would fall out of this ruling because most weapons(no sunder with percing) are suited to these maneuvers.
Just to clarify my meaning; if you perform a maneuver without a weapon you must be attacking either with a natural attack or an unarmed strike these are the only options by the rules.
Maybe this is not a perfect solution but is an interpretation I feel comfortable with. And helps avoid the sillyness DM_Blake mentions.
(And yeah, Hogarth, making trip attacks with saps is stupid. So is swimming in full plate, but a high enough level fighter can do that too. Sometimes you just got to close your eyes and pretend for the sake of fun. A paraphrase from our Dr. Jacobs.)
I agree that common sense should prevail. But note that your example is flawed -- swimming in full plate is more difficult than usual (which makes sense) but tripping with a masterwork sap is easier than usual (which doesn't make much sense).
(And yeah, Hogarth, making trip attacks with saps is stupid. So is swimming in full plate, but a high enough level fighter can do that too. Sometimes you just got to close your eyes and pretend for the sake of fun. A paraphrase from our Dr. Jacobs.)I agree that common sense should prevail. But note that your example is flawed -- swimming in full plate is more difficult than usual (which makes sense) but tripping with a masterwork sap is easier than usual (which doesn't make much sense).
Fair enough, I don't disagree with that specifically. But the specifics of the example aren't nearly as relevant in the face of the larger context, that both scenarios are absurd.
Nidho,
No.. I wasn't specifically speaking about you or any one, but you have some worthwhile comments, so I'll reply.
I think I understand where you're coming from, and if I'm reading you correctly I really don't disagree or object to your approach.
There seems to be three ways to deal with issue of a weapon property requirement to do a combat manuever.
A.) Adhere to the Equipment Section description, and forbid certain combat manuevers (specifically trip) if the weapon doesn't have the appropriate property.
B.) Take the Combat Chapter and description of the manuevers at face value. If there isn't a requirement for a special weapon listed, then there is no such requirement.
C.) Take the spirit of Point B, and evaluate each situation on a case by case basis. If the weapon doesn't lend itself to the manuever, then rule on that case specifically, but don't necessarily apply a broad sweeping rule.
From what you've written, I think you fall under "C". And that's no bad thing. At first, I'd have said I was a "B" person, but based on the comments in this thread I'm probably more of a "C" person; I don't know because I've never actually had a player try a combat manuever that didn't seem perfectly reasonable (i.e. no one has tried to trip with a sap before).
James Risner and the Grandfather appear to position themselves under "A", and no longer wish to debate the matter, which is fine for them. I wish them well.
However, the point of discussing this, even though we may all disagree with each other on some points, is that people come to the boards to learn about the rules. We all try to help. Sometimes in trying to answer the question, we find out that we're actually wrong (happens to me all the time), but we learn something.
If we see a rule interpretation that we think is wrong, we should call it out. So that the people reading the thread can read that there are differing opinions, make an informed decision, and maybe even draw their own conclusions. It does no good to stay silent thinking "I wouldn't do it that way myself" just to avoid debate. And again, sometimes we go into such a discussion thinking we're right but learning something new.
|
I think a lot of people are reading "Trip" too litterally. It might have been better served to have been named "Knock Down". I can easily envision using a sap to knock someone down, even if I never touch their legs. Just like I can envision sweeping a leg with a quarterstaff.
For the record, I see no other way to read the rule than in the context of an evolution of 3.5, so I read it as "Trip with any attack you like, but if using a "Trip" weapon you never risk being tripped in return on a miserably failed roll."
The thing I've learned from this discussion is that the CMB-based special attacks in PF are much more open-ended for DM interpretation than the 3.5 rules. It's hard to migrate from 3.5 (where I played for quite a while) to PF without understanding the *intent* of how the new rules are supposed to work. I know they wanted to streamline the rules. OK, there's less rules and the system is more uniform. But now there are confusing questions that pop up once you start exploring the system's design space. Do we fill in the blanks with 3.5, or do we assume that because it isn't said, it wasn't intended?
I personally would rule that trips occur with either your unarmed efforts to knock someone down or a trip weapon. While a quarterstaff can render someone prone, it's not *effective* in a battlefield context. Wrapping a spiked chain around someone's legs and pulling hard seems much more effective, as does any weapon with a hook or wrapping mechanism.
Likewise, you shouldn't be able to grapple someone with anything other than an unarmed attack. Grappling has always implied holding. Improved Grapple still requires Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite. Thus, the attack used to make a grapple attempt should be with unarmed strike.
Bull rushes should be unarmed as well. Most weapons would be damaged by the force of trying to heave your weight on something to move it. There are exceptions to this though (shields, particularly with Shield Slam).
This is more or less the 3.5 way of doing things, but it makes sense to me. The system seems perhaps too flexible in that interpretation-wise, you're on your own here.
I wouldn't be adverse to an offical ruling, but those are rare if nn-existant. There always seems to be another deadline that needs to be met rather than clearing some of this stuff up.
Alright, I do not think I saw my view of how this works posted by anyone else, so here goes. If you are engaged in combat with someone or something, then you can only use trip if you are using a weapon that specifically says you can do so because your opponent is aware of your actions. If your (potential) opponent is unaware of you or not expecting some action by you, then you can use whatever you have available to attempt to trip so long as you can reach the ground/their feet with the weapon or other object.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
James Risner and the Grandfather appear to position themselves under "A", and no longer wish to debate the matter
It isn't as much "no longer wish to debate" as it is "haven't been shown a rule that disqualifies the first line in the Trip weapon rules."
Until there is a rule found that says "you can trip with any weapon" or something similar, ignoring one line (a specific rule) just because you don't like the line and it invalidates your reading of RAW doesn't prove your reading of RAW is the correct (or even the only) way to read the rules.
"You can trip with this weapon" does not mean "You cannot trip with any other weapon". You've yet to provide any rule that supports the second statement.
"You can trip with this weapon" does not mean "You cannot trip with any other weapon". You've yet to provide any rule that supports the second statement.
This is logically correct but let's take a look on another special weapon ability:
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Classes).
If we apply your logic to it we are allowing the monk to flurry with any weapon, which is clearly not the intent of the rule.
"You can trip with this weapon" does not mean "You cannot trip with any other weapon". You've yet to provide any rule that supports the second statement.This is logically correct but let's take a look on another special weapon ability:
Monk: A monk weapon can be used by a monk to perform a flurry of blows (see Classes).
If we apply your logic to it we are allowing the monk to flurry with any weapon, which is clearly not the intent of the rule.
Let's use the text of the ability to make our points, shall we?
Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).
Here, Flurry of Blows specifically states exactly which weapons it is usable with. None of the Combat Maneuvers list any restrictions whatsoever, nor do any of them state that they are usable with any weapons at all.
It isn't as much "no longer wish to debate" as it is "haven't been shown a rule that disqualifies the first line in the Trip weapon rules."
Neither of us will be satisfied because neither position is clearly defined. However, since you opt to rejoin the discussion-
Until there is a rule found that says "you can trip with any weapon" or something similar...
Hold right there please.
And show me any line that says you must use a trip weapon in order to perform a trip maneuver. Be prepared to do yourself, whatever it is you challenge me to do. Check your equipment section again. You will find the word "may", not "must" be used. It designates that this particular weapon may be dropped if the trip attempt fails.
...ignoring one line (a specific rule) just because you don't like the line and it invalidates your reading of RAW doesn't prove your reading of RAW is the correct (or even the only) way to read the rules.
I neither like it or dislike it. You don't know me. So stick to the facts and a polite tone please. I made no unpleasant remark about you.
I am not ignoring that one sentence in the Equipment section. I see it quite clearly, but as I mentioned above, I don't interpret it as defining the requirements of a trip attack.The first sentence identifies the weapon as a special trip weapon. The second sentence describes what that property grants the wielder.
Rather, I leave the definition and mechanics of the trip maneuver to the actual chapter on combat. Where two whole paragraphs are dedicated to the specific topic of trip attacks.
As I said, your interpretation is not one bit better defined that mine. In lieu of a clear definition, I defer to the Chapter on Combat wherein the mechanics of the maneuver are detailed along with the method to adjudicate them. Unabashedly, I think that speaks on the topic with more authority than the Equipment Section. You're welcome to disagree.
"You can trip with this weapon" does not mean "You cannot trip with any other weapon". You've yet to provide any rule that supports the second statement.
Correct.
And as purely anecdotal evidence, in 3.5 you needed no weapon to perform a trip attack. The trip weapons, again, only provided some measure of safety should the maneuver go poorly. I find it hard to accept that Pathfinder actually restricts the trip ability in the effort attempts to simplify and streamline it.
Does anyone taking part in this discussion own or have access to WotC's final official rule book for 3.5, the Rules Compendium? If so, turn to page 145 to see a somewhat expanded description of Trip. It is still not clear enough, but after reading though it, I believe what both 3.5 and PF are trying to say about Trip is that in order to attempt to trip an opponent, no matter what you are using to make the attempt, you make an unarmed melee touch attack which will provoke an AoO from the defender. But, what the weapons do that have the special trip ability is that when using one of them you make a melee touch attack with the weapon and do NOT provoke an AoO from the defender.